ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2019
Comparative Safety of Aspiration Thrombectomy Catheters Utilizing Prospective, Active Surveillance of the NCDR CathPCI Registry.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Active Surveillance of the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Registry for Defibrillator Lead Failures.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2020Observational
- Active surveillance for implanted devices: strength in numbers.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background Current strategies for ensuring the postmarket safety of medical devices are limited by small sample size and reliance on voluntary reporting of adverse events. Prospective, active surveillance of clinical registries may provide early warnings in the postmarket evaluation of medical device safety but has not been demonstrated in national clinical data registries. Methods and Results The CathPCI DELTA (Data Extraction and Longitudinal Trend Analysis) study was designed to assess the feasibility of prospective, active safety surveillance of medical devices within a national cardiovascular registry. We sought to assess the ability of our surveillance strategy to avoid false safety alerts by conducting an active safety surveillance study of aspiration thrombectomy catheters using data within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry, where no difference in safety outcomes were anticipated for the primary in-hospital safety outcome of death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a propensity-matched analysis of 5 aspiration thrombectomy catheter devices used during percutaneous coronary intervention among 95 925 patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2013. After 33 months of surveillance, no safety alerts were triggered for the primary safety endpoints of death or MACE, with no between-catheter differences observed. The absolute risk of death during acute hospitalization ranged from 5.11% to 5.32% among the most commonly used aspiration thrombectomy catheter devices, with relative risks for death ranging from 0.96 to 1.03. The absolute risk of MACE ranged from 9.78% to 10.18%, with relative risks for MACE ranging from 0.99 to 1.02. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of death or MACE between any of the aspiration thrombectomy catheter devices analyzed. Conclusions The CathPCI DELTA study demonstrates that prospective, active safety surveillance of national clinical registries is feasible to provide near-real-time safety assessments of new medical devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.